The odd thing about both the Labour Party and the government promising bills yesterday to ban synthetic cannabis products is that this doesn't really need a law change. The Psychoactive Substances Act gives the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority the power to withdraw product approvals very quickly, in response to evidence of harm.

The problem was, there wasn't evidence associated with any particular product granted interim approval under the Act. In his press statement yesterday, Peter Dunne said that while there have been reports of severe adverse reactions (the benchmark for immediate withdrawal under the new law):

It has been impossible to attribute these adverse effects to any particular products and in the absence of that ministers accepted my recommendation at cabinet last Tuesday to end the transitional period, taking all products with interim approval off the market.

So along with all the synthetic cannabis products on the list, the goverment will ban a bunch of basically harmless pep pills. Cosmic Corner stores are going to be fairly quiet places. I don't actually buy the claim that it was impossible to associate adverse reactions with any product. Not one report included the name of a particular product? Not even true. In the undated sample of records of calls to the National Poisons Centre that I received last week, most callers named a product. (Two of the products named in the list I got, AK47 and Anarchy, have already had their licences revoked.)

The chatter amongst users has been that two particular products, Lemon Grass and Choco Haze, both made by the same company and both containing AB-FUBINACA, have been problematic. If so, that may be the product and the ingredient or just the ingredient. The Ministry of Health has only just introduced purity testing standards for AB-FUBINACA and similar chemicals. That's pretty poor.

On the other hand, on the basis of what Leo Schep of the National Poisons Centre told told Kathryn Ryan this morning, it appears that the latest synthetic cannabinoids have much worse implications for withdrawal than those banned before we had a regulatory structure. It really does seem that we've already banned the less risky products over the past five years. It may simply be, as I suggested that week, that synthetic cannabinoids were always a poor option for regulated sale.

And yet, as Tim Watkin notes in a good post, information provided by the Authority to The Nation indicates that the number of severe presentations to emergency departments and severe issues reported to the National Poisons Centre have reduced since the Act came into force. So by that measure, the law was working.

As far as the politics goes, senior Labour people are convinced that Dunne moved only after becoming aware of their draft bill, which was circulated within the caucus early last week. You can speculate on who they might suspect of leaking it to the government.

Peter Dunne for his part insists that the government had already decided to ban everything butwas delaying an announcment to prevent stockpiling. He now says any consequences of the hasty ban will be on Labour (and New Zealand First, which was also preparing a bill). But Opposition parties are quite entitled to bring bills to do things the goverment isn't. If he didn't want them to do so, there was nothing to stop Dunne talking to the other parties and letting them know about his supposed plans. Indeed, that would have been the responsible thing to do. Someone should ask him why he didn't.

But here's the thing: had the interim approvals grace period run its course until the ministry got its regulations for testing in place next year, there would have been a much longer run-up, but the synthetic cannabinoids would all have been withdrawn from sale pending testing. Dunne -- and everyone else -- knew this all along.

It's all happening now in a twitchy environment and I think it's inevitable that there will now be firesaling and stockpiling and some leakage to the black market. After BZP was banned in "party pills", it turned up in so-called ecstasy tablets for a year afterwards. Thanks to the Psychoactive Substances Act, there should be better tracking of supply than there was with BZP, but it'll happen.

I think the real risk isn't from the cannabis-lookalike products, but if the pure chemicals get out into the illicit market. Perhaps from existing channels, but also illicitly imported from places where they are legally manufactured. As Campbell Live helpfully pointed out to its viewers, this stuff is easy to import, and people will.

The problem is that you can't eyeball doses with this stuff -- doses are in the low milligrams. The relevant Erowid vault has some pretty scary stories from people overdosing with pure synthetic cannabinoids.

I think there's some merit in the view that this has been a good bill poorly implemented. Even given that it's all new territory, it has simply taken too long to get in place. On the other hand, we're undoubtedly dealing with the mess of nearly five years of cat-and-mouse bans before the Act became law.

Local councils share some blame too. The nasty little hole-in-the-wall shop at the mall in Naenae, as shown on Campbell Live, would have been gone had Hutt Council published a Local Approved Products Plan (LAPP). That's what happened in Hamilton after the council there published a LAPP in March.

The suppliers themselves are drug dealers, but I suppose drug dealers who obey the law are better than drug dealers who don't. They insist their products are low-risk, but they must have had an idea about where the problems were.

The immediate issue is what happens to those users who had become dependent on the cannabinoid products. If there is a plan to offer them addiction support services, Dunne was keeping it to himself this morning.

In the long-term, this morning's interviews speak of a depressing retreat from a conversation we had to have, particularly around cannabis itself. The Psychoactive Substances Act ordained a regulatory structure that could easily have been portable to a legalised cannabis market -- it's stricter, but not that different from what's operating without any notable problems in Colorado.

Yet both David Cunliffe and (more emphatically) John Key told Morning Report today that they and their parties were both opposed to the decriminalisation of cannabis. Not legalisation, just a move away from trying to deal with psychoactive drug use by criminalising users. So we keep on doing what we do, because it's election year.

How much would it have hurt either of them to say the following words?

Does this mean that products which have not been submitted for interim approval (and which are not part of previously banned categories) will no longer be illegal? The scope of the new law will be crucial.

they and their parties were both opposed to the decriminalisation of cabbanis.

Sounds dangerous. Keep it illegal. ETA: I see the problem has been fixed – it was fun while it lasted.

People have been asking in the other thread about the legal implications of possessing these substances now. As per Section 71 of the Act, mere possession is not a very serious offence:

71 Offence relating to personal possession of psychoactive substance that is not approved product(1)A person commits an offence if the person has a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product in his or her possession.(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who holds a licence in respect of the psychoactive substance.(3)A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $500.

70 Offences relating to psychoactive substance that is not approved product(1)A person commits an offence if the person, without reasonable excuse,—(a)sells or supplies a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product to any person; or(b)offers to sell or supply a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product to any person; or(c)possesses a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product with the intent to sell or supply the psychoactive substance to any person.(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who holds a licence to sell psychoactive substances that are not approved products that applies to the psychoactive substance.(3)A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction,—(a)in the case of an individual, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years:(b)in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $500,000.

By comparison, the penalties relating to cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act are much more severe: three months jail for possession and eight years for supply or even growing plants. If it happens to be in the form of hashish, manufacture or supply attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years.

Good post on the issue here by Tim Watkin. Especially this info provided to The Nation:

Nicola Kean, a producer for The Nation, asked the Ministry of Health last week:

“What’s the trend (if any) for people presenting at A+E for problems with psychoactive substances since the law was introduced?”

A written reply on Thursday said:

“While it is early days the Authority has received anecdotal reports demonstrating the number of severe presentations to emergency departments has reduced since the Act came in.

The Authority monitors approved products received from the Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM), and calls from the public to the National Poisons Centre on a regular basis.

These reports also show a reduction in the number of severe issues being reported. Where severe adverse reactions are reported the Authority has the power to act and has already removed products from the market where reports to CARM identified they posed more than a low risk of harm”.

There’s no political downside for anyone in a lot of hot air – and hasty, not-terribly-well-designed legislation – to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, and there’s no credible case would ever happen? I’m really not impressed by the (figurative) willy-waving going on between Dunne, Cunliffe and Key.

This all seems like a knee jerk reaction to the media frenzy surrounding how these substances were destroying the very fabric of our society... and as a result we can expect little rationale dialogue around recreational drugs for a few more years?

Utter bullshit. As if Labour proposing a policy forces the govt to enact it.

If Dunne was actually worried about the impact of announcing his change, there was nothing to stop his continued silence - except the sheer political vanity of wanting to be seen as the one who thought of it.

The silver lining is the philosophical bankruptcy of harm reduction policy (elephant in the room style) has finally had the creditors called in. It's a bit like seeing Dunkirk as a step forward. Finally, we're in a position to call an end. Not the beginning of the end...that's still a long way off. That's where America is. We're at the end of the beginning.

Utter bullshit. As if Labour proposing a policy forces the govt to enact it.

If Dunne was actually worried about the impact of announcing his change, there was nothing to stop his continued silence – except the sheer political vanity of wanting to be seen as the one who thought of it.

Just went looking for the "upvote" button on that comment, then remembered where I was. Consider this comment an upvote.

The silver lining is the philosophical bankruptcy of harm reduction policy (elephant in the room style)

Oh, come on. Harm minimisation is what brought us needle exchanges and safe needle drops for IV drug users, and allows pill testing at at dance parties in more enlightened countries. It’s what got all personal drug possession decriminalised in Portugal. It’s a key element of marijuana legalisation in Colorado, and prostitution law reform in New Zealand.

It might not be perfect, but it has actual runs on the board. It seems better than just waiting for things to improve after the prohibitionist apocalypse. But, then, I've always been a dirty incrementalist.

I did say “elephant in the room style”. It could be done without that. It’s how it’s being done* in NZ that I’m referring to.

It seems better than just waiting for things to improve after the prohibitionist apocalypse. But, then, I’ve always been a dirty incrementalist.

Well, now we’ve got prohibition. That’s what they think of your incrementalism.

*ETA: Sorry, make that "how it was done". I'm still struggling to get my head around the fact that they just announced an intention to make every psychoactive substance illegal. Except, of course, the two that kill the most people by far, tobacco and alcohol. Oh and coffee. We've still got coffee. For now.

Drug use is a health issue, and a personal liberty issue. That second part of it got eroded to being worth nearly zero, before being called by the umpire as now officially zero. I think the new name for Dunne should be "Silver Hammer".